Atheism, Autism and Narcissism

[CynthiaCypher]

Sure you didn't.

Show me.

 

[Curious George]

It not be able to get switched on because there is no electricity in the house in the first place.

Are we talking figuratively on purpose now?

A person with a better power source has no need of electricity.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

A person with a better power source has no need of electricity.

Osmosis only works for lower lifeforms

Can we cut it out with the figurative language? Some of our atheists or fundamentalists friends might not get it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

instead of setting up the strawman, how about address what I said? :sarcastic
My first post.

This one?

No offense, but many atheists, including ones with several degree's such as Dawkins, claims that religious people are all delusional.
Not a shred of scientific evidence to even support that billions of people atheists do not know are all delusional.

The same is said for people who claim to have seen UFO's, bigfoot, etc.

Basically, it's an empty title to explain the unknown to them.

Who do you think is claiming that all religious people are delusional?

As for the atheism and narcissist thing, go on any atheist run board, YT, and even respectable debates.
Atheists seem to have a narcissist air about them.
Specially dawkins, when he gives his hate speeches, he seems to be so happy and enjoying the hate he is creating.
So yah, the evidence speaks for itself.

Narcissism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I talked about how Richard Dawkins compares to religious figures in another thread a while back:

In that regard, I think that there's a bit of a double standard when it comes to atheism.

Here's Dawkins' quote from the OP, only re-jigged to be in favour of faith instead of against it:

I think there's something very good about faith, where faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence, and actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of evidence. And the reason that's good is that it justifies essentially anything. If you're taught in your holy book or by your priest that the starving should be fed or the sick should be healed -- anybody who is in need should be cared for -- that clearly is good. And people don't have to justify it because it's their faith. They don't have to say, "Well, here's a very good reason for this." All they need to say is, "That's what my faith says." And we're all expected to back off and respect that. Whether or not we're actually faithful ourselves, we've been brought up to respect faith and to regard it as something that should not be challenged. And that can have extremely good consequences. The consequences it's had historically -- charities, hospitals, right up to the present time where you have missionaries feeding the poor and preaching the Gospel in the Third World -- all in the name of faith.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that if that was given as part of the homily/sermon in an Anglican church, the worst that people would say about it was that it was kinda boring. But when someone speaks out against faith instead of in favour of it, suddenly it's intolerant.

IMO, if Richard Dawkins is an intolerant "fundie", then so is the most liberal and benign of Christian preachers, because they're the same distance away from the neutral middle point. The only thing that makes it seem otherwise is the fact that we're more accustomed to people speaking positively of religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Show me.

Didn't anyone ever teach you to use the word "please"?

 

[DreadFish]

Well narcissism is not a secure state of mind to begin with. In fact I think it betrays a sense of insecurity. Now is it possible that some people are atheist because of a sense of insecurity?

Yes, I think it is possible, but I think it is also possible with any given religion. I tend to see that a lot of people who have had troubled lives end up choosing Christianity because they have a strong need to feel forgiven or valued, or because they want to be able to shirk responsibility because humans are inherently sinful and there ain't nothin' they can do about it (nothin' they have to do about it) but believe in Jesus and accept his sacrifice.

I think that being atheist is not much different than following any particular religion in this regard. There are people who choose to only believe what science can test and validate and that's where they've put their confidence/faith. A person chooses to believe what they choose based on what they feel they need, whether consciously or subconsciously.

 

[Curious George]

Can we cut it out with the figurative language? Some of our atheists or fundamentalists friends might not get it.

I will try but your first post destroyed my scissors.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Yes, I think it is possible, but I think it is also possible with any given religion. I tend to see that a lot of people who have had troubled lives end up choosing Christianity because they have a strong need to feel forgiven or valued, or because they want to be able to shirk responsibility because humans are inherently sinful and there ain't nothin' they can do about it (nothin' they have to do about it) but believe in Jesus and accept his sacrifice.

I think that being atheist is not much different than following any particular religion in this regard. There are people who choose to only believe what science can test and validate and that's where they've put their confidence/faith. A person chooses to believe what they choose based on what they feel they need, whether consciously or subconsciously.

So both are some human need to make sense of the world?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I will try but your first post destroyed my scissors.

Well you can cut your own cake the way you want.

 

[Curious George]

Well you can cut your own cake the way you want.

My cake is community property, I forget that others are more capitalistic than me. Deepest apologies, I will remove the figurative language.

 

[DawudTalut]

Some scientist and researchers have made a connection between atheism and some forms of autism. A religious belief is thought to be neuro-typical, our natural, normal and healthy mental functions induce these sort of beliefs for our own benefit. Except for the atheist, their brain do not function normally, many do not understand figurative language (which is needed to develop a healthy spirituality), feel a deep inner connection to others or the outside or feel that much empathy, all indications of autism. According to some scientists whom I have read people on the autistic spectrum are more likely to be atheistic.

And know what you are about to read next might sound like an unethical experiment, well because it is. At times I have used figurative language purposely when in discussions with certain atheists and often times they were unable to decode what I was saying. In fact I would do this several times with the same atheists and the results would often be the same, they would either take what I said literally or they seemed to be confused at what I was trying to convey figuratively. So I do believe that some atheists might indeed have some form of autism.

But also, the inability to connect or empathize with others might mean something else in the atheists besides autism. Autistic people might find it hard to form deep connections or empathize with others but they also have a deep seated need to do so. So this leaves me with another option: Maybe autistic people are not prone to atheism, maybe it is people who are merely narcissistic who are prone to atheism. I can see how the two could get confused. Narcissists are like Jehovah, they see themselves as the center of the universe and there can be no other Gods before them. In fact I think narcissism might be more conducive towards the creation of an atheist than I could see autism doing so.

Your thoughts.

Peace be on you. How about those who latter accepts religion? One think that sometimes the environment and mistakes of religious people play great role in total denial of religion, e.g, behavior of religious people towards scientist few centuries back and now these days holding bombs in hands and trying to convert people etc etc......{One may find deficiency of vitamin B12 in fanatics!!.....but none will hold bare electrical wires!!}

 

[Nymphs]

No offense, but

What you really mean is, I'm going to offend you, but I'll pretend I'm not.

"No offense, but..." is the biggest cop-out on trying to apologize when you are going to say it anyways.

 

[kashmir]

What you really mean is, I'm going to offend you, but I'll pretend I'm not.

"No offense, but..." is the biggest cop-out on trying to apologize when you are going to say it anyways.

Plz, what I meant by that was I wasn't referring to him.
You really reached hard for that one

BTW, show me in the thread where it was designed to offend him, k?
:yes:

It would be the same thing if I said
"No offense but I could never be polygamist, ewwww"

That means to me, that its yuckie for me, but I realize its ok for you.

What you are referring to is this: (BTW I am not referring to you in these examples)
"No offense but you are the stupidest and smelliest person in the world"
"No offense, but your hairdo looks like it was cut by a blind monkey on LDS"
"No offense but your singing sounds like a dying rat in a blender on high speed"

See the difference?

 

[DreadFish]

So both are some human need to make sense of the world?

I think that might be the case.

EDIT: We seek a sense of stability and we want to be right, it makes us feel more secure. I think that having the right view of what's going on gives us some sense of confidence and security.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism is simply a tendency that some people have to perceive existence without assuming a will behind it.

Autism is simply an unusual neurological configuration. If even that... I have come to wonder if it isn't actually taught to some degree, due to lack of proper early stimulation. Hard to tell, because there has been something of a fad to over-diagnose it.

Narcisism is interesting. It seems to be mainly a panic reaction to try and attempt to balance contradictory values. It, too, is somewhat over-diagnosed, mainly because our current zeistgeist is so very individual-minded and fails to properly acknowledge how unhealthy such heightened individualism is.

At its core, narcissism is just a confused sense of how important one is in the larger scheme of things. It can only very rarely exist when is often given proper feedback and opportunity for social integration. In a society that glorifies it, it will of course be very common.


So I see no significant link between the three. There is however a somewhat misleading appearance of connection in societies such as ours that are both highly individualistic and obsessed with the idea of belief in God.

 

[crossfire]

<...>

Narcisism is interesting. It seems to be mainly a panic reaction to try and attempt to balance contradictory values. It, too, is somewhat over-diagnosed, mainly because our current zeistgeist is so very individual-minded and fails to properly acknowledge how unhealthy such heightened individualism is.

At its core, narcissism is just a confused sense of how important one is in the larger scheme of things. It can only very rarely exist when is often given proper feedback and opportunity for social integration. In a society that glorifies it, it will of course be very common.


So I see no significant link between the three. There is however a somewhat misleading appearance of connection in societies such as ours that are both highly individualistic and obsessed with the idea of belief in God.

Actually narcissism is the failure of an individual to recognize individual personal boundaries and see others as an extension of themselves. This is not heightened individualism--it is the failure to acknowledge individuals as separate. By definition, individualism is using the individual as the central unit of analysis. Narcissists fail to do this.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually narcissism is the failure of an individual to recognize individual personal boundaries and see others as an extension of themselves.

So it seems to me as well.

This is not heightened individualism--it is the failure to acknowledge individuals as separate.

This does not seem to be an ideal wording to me. Narcissists may have a hard time caring about separate individuals, but it does not look like they confuse themselves with them.

Sort of the opposite, really.

By definition, individualism is using the individual as the central unit of analysis. Narcissists fail to do this.

Do they? You seem to be talking about other individuals as opposed to themselves.


The hurdle here is that you are understanding individualism to be respect for the individual, while I define it as the undue over-valuation of same. As in the failure to realize how reliant on community the individual is.

 

[crossfire]

<...>
The hurdle here is that you are understanding individualism to be respect for the individual, while I define it as the undue over-valuation of same. As in the failure to realize how reliant on community the individual is.

You can't have egalitarianism without recognition of the individuals--you need something by which to measure equality--and that measure is the individual. Failure to recognize the individual as valid is where you lose egalitarianism. That really cannot be stressed enough. If you want to call that undue over evaluation of the individual, that is your prerogative, but you cannot call yourself egalitarian if you do, imo.

 

[LuisDantas]

You can't have egalitarianism without recognition of the individuals--you need something by which to measure equality--and that measure is the individual. Failure to recognize the individual as valid is where you lose egalitarianism. That really cannot be stressed enough. If you want to call that undue over evaluation of the individual, that is your prerogative, but you cannot call yourself egalitarian if you do, imo.

Such wording puzzles me. It just seems so counter-intuitive and counter-productive. Just plain confusing, really. I definitely do not see it as accurate.

Tell me what you understand by egalitarianism. Maybe I can be convinced.

 

[crossfire]

Such wording puzzles me. It just seems so counter-intuitive and counter-productive. Just plain confusing, really. I definitely do not see it as accurate.

Tell me what you understand by egalitarianism. Maybe I can be convinced.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Definition of EGALITARIANISM
1
: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
2
: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people​

Definition of EQUAL:

1
a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
b : like in quality, nature, or status
c : like for each member of a group, class, or society <provide equal employment opportunities>
2
: regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : impartial​

As you can see from the definition of egalitarianism, it is for equality among people and the removal of inequalities among people. If you look at the definition of equal, you need to recognize the individual members of the group in order to evaluate equality. Therefore, you cannot have egalitarianism (equality of individuals) without the recognition of each individual. Failure to recognize each individual as a unit means that you cannot measure equality. Therefore, one must be an individualist to be an egalitarian--one must recognize and honor the individuality of each person in order for there to be equality.